Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "The details of a Canadian spying case are coming to light, including the method of copying the sensitive data from the 'secured' computer linking five countries and the Russian handlers: Copy Data into Notepad; Save File to Floppy Drive; USB Key; ???; Profit! For $3000/mo in prepaid credit cards and wire transfers."

The internet has definitely changed the espionage game. If you think about it, the entire premise of Star Wars falls apart completely in an internet society. The movie starts out with Vader trying to recover the plans for the Death Star which are stored on R2D2, and then the entire middle of the movie involves trying to physically transport R2 to the Rebels to allow them to stage an attack. If the Empire had internet, then the rebel spies would have just uploaded the plans for the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance, and you'd skip straight to the final scene of the movie.

It was the best SneakerNet available. Probably the Empire would find any base station transmitting that far before it could finish. Plus we haven't exactly finished work on those deep-space FTL network, either.

I realize parent and grandparent are mostly joking but the internet has not solved the problem of moving around very large amounts of data, quite on the contrary. The disk sizes have been growing much faster for the last 30 years than the network bandwidth. Even today when there is a larger amount of data, it's transferred physically, not over IP.

I think that depends on how you define "very large amounts of data" and where you are moving it to. Since upgrading to FIOS quantum, I regularly move over 1TB a month across my home connection. Generally at work with even larger connections I move a few GB of data to vendors across the country; and that's not counting the data moved across the internet by the other hundred thousand or so employees. The only times I even use physical media are when I have to install an OS, want to perform an offline back

If the Empire had internet, then the rebel spies would have just uploaded the plans for the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance, and you'd skip straight to the final scene of the movie.

You're assuming a free and open internet (or holonet as described in the books), that wouldn't have been monitored by the Empire. With the Empire monitoring all communications a transfer of Death Start plans would have informed the Empire to the location of both the sender and the receiver.

Communication lasers (those used to transmit data over short distances like within a star system) are used regularly in SF over shorter distances (like a few dozen km) as weapons.
Within those shorter distances, the beam is still powerful enough (read: not yet attenuated/diffracted so much) that it can cut through the hull of another ship (or melt the power-supply of a General Products hull)

I work with point clouds for scanning military vessels. That's what the data on the screen in Star Wars shows, point clouds.

Each compartment IRL is a couple of GB of data. The Death star, assuming 1000 compartments, would require several Terabytes of point cloud information in order for it to be useful to the Alliance. We have trouble moving individual compartments around our 1000 Network and it's just easier to move stuff around on portable hard drives.

Until there are 50-cent, rewritable at will and without hassle, flat storage media, floppy disks still have some utility. Obviously the utility is declining because of their limited capacity, but I still use 'em. I throw adequate-res photos of clients' property into their insurance files. Way faster and easier than burning an optical disc.

USB flash drives are just as convenient, but they're still too pricey for some applications. If you could buy tens-of-megabyte thin, flat flash drives for tens of cent

I know several photographers that just use SD cards for this purpose. 1GB SD cards sell on amazon.com for literally 1 cent, and 16GB cards from respected brands like sandisk are only $5usd. You must be using really low res photos, even compressed jpg images from my somewhat outdated (and decidedly not professional grade) 12mp Nikon D90 are far too large to fit a single image on a floppy disk.

It's not the file system taking up that space, it's the room between sectors. You can fit more sectors into a track, but I think it won't be readable without a special driver then. Same for larger sectors. You can also add more tracks, going up to 82 (from 80) should work with most disks and drives and that might work without a special driver.

Almost all ways to peruse digital documents involve a copy to be done somewhere.
That copy can be somehow defended against unwanted accesses.
But if I am allowed to make a copy-of-the-copy, then security is gone: there's no way to defend the second level copy any more.
It doesn't matter whether it's text, a picture, a map, a formula, an MP3 or a digital movie.

Meh, and your government probably paid people in other countries to do the same. Not a big deal really....everybody is doing it, then pretending to be surprized when it happens to them. Piece of shit? Only if people within the government work with equivalent shitbags elsewhere.

Frankly, I don't care too much when people do the same to "my country". Damned government doesn't have our interests at heart anyway, why should I care what happens to them and their secrets? Not my problem.

It is also interesting that supposedly he did not actually transmit the data he stole directly to his handlers. He would write a synopsis (mostly about Russian mobsters) and send that via email. It couldn't have been that much raw data, unless the data itself was somehow detectable in an email or attachment via CSE or NSA.

But frankly, the fact that they aren't blowing billions of dollars on having bases in the Middle East, supporting an "ally" that stabs them in the back every chance they get while still doing things that stir up trouible - like stealing other people's land, and the fact that I've never heard protestors in a Muslim country yell, "Death to Cananda!" or a Latin/South American say something bad about a Canadian.

If it weren't for us, the US, I bet their lives would be much more peaceful.

In other words, we got involved with the UN-authorized war in Afghanistan, whereas we stayed out of the dubiously-justified Iraq war.

For what it's worth, we also had a minor role in the war in Libya. I noticed during the celebrations in Benghazi after the fall of Ghaddafi that among the flags being waved was a Canadian one. Rather a surprising sight.

Joking aside, we only had three snow storms here in Halifax, Nova Scotia last year, as opposed to near weekly snow storms twenty years ago. Hell, it's 15 deg C out right now (about 60 deg F), 10 deg C is coat weather, when I was young enough to go trick-or-treating, 20 to 25 years ago,I wore a winter coat and remember snow on the ground. I haven't seen snow before November 11th in at least five years and even then it was just one day snow fall, the next day w

To be fair. It is not at all a forgone conclusion that if the US were to not do these things that other countries would not have to step up their defense spending.I think that the US having to spend all this money allows allies to spend considerably less.

I think that the US having to spend all this money allows allies to spend considerably less.

What exactly is the value of having allies with a tiny fraction of our military capability?

Too many of our relationships are still being defined by World War II or the Cold War. We need a serious foreign relations update, to reflect current realities rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill for countries entirely capable of looking after themselves.

Not saying you are wrong here.Just pointing out to the "Other countries can get by with a small military " hippy, peace mother fuuckers that someone has to do it.Might not have to be us but someone will.

American allies are usually perfectly fine to defend themselves. I know one of the reasons for the ANZUS treaty was America was the only country that had the power to successfully attack Australia.
If America did pull out of these countries there goes favorable negotiating conditions for trade and such, there goes safe sea lanes, there goes a safe oil supply, up will go the proliferation of weapons and with it tension and possibly war. I really think America gains a lot more selling weapons and pushing the

I live in one of those "other countries". As far as I'm concerned, we don't need any of your "defence spending", so feel free to cut it as much as you want. I'm pretty sure a few billion people agree with me.

The only thing your "defence spending" is defending is the big pockets of the military-industrial complex.

Again. You can agree with it or not.But if you live in Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Isreal, Taiwan or a bunch of other places if the US were to just go away tomorrow defense spending in those countries would need to go up.Maybe not France, they can give up for a very low cost in defense spending.

I hate to say it, but most of the money Canada does spend on defense is mainly to keep the US from starting conflicts here. My Dad is retired Navy and has always told me most of our ships are required to keep the American's out of our arctic territories. I do believe the Americans are the biggest threat to Canada, as the state of the world currently stands. Of course there's always another bully waiting to take the current ones place.

I doubt the rest would care, but you're probably right about Israel - and I'd like to see that, maybe they would actually need to consider acting up... Israel isn't that praised outside the USA, even if their enemies aren't really liked any better.

Not that I really disagree, but from Canada's point of view who is a serious threat? China launching a marine invasion and holding the second biggest country on earth? The only serious threat to Canada is the USA and that war would be over rather quickly, so why bother with a huge military to defend against that?

I know, all that maple syrup; our troops wouldn't stand a chance! Gives me the heebeejeebee's just thinking about Canada's first strike: the great syrup flood of NYC... all those poor people encased forever in maple deliciousness:(

Actually you got it just right. It used to be that the only serious threat was the US (because they might want, uh, huge.. tracts of land...), although now with the Arctic melting Russia might show up.

Also, if the US comes up here, the war might not end that quickly. The Canadian military, as little as they are, might be better prepared for resistance in winter, and invading/keeping such a large territory is difficult. And if not? The US will try to bring more baseball/American football in, and if you fre

I know it's hard for people to actually be informed on topics before they speak, but you may want to research how in the past decade or so Canada has very much gone from a "peace keeper" to a "peace maker". They were one of the first countries pushing for military intervention in Libya and their conservative government is only going to continue that going forward.

However also I believe we are in general a more multicultural and secular people (I could just be making this up, no citations). So its not a big Jesus VS Mohammad kind of thing. Of course I doubt radicals make much distinction between one type of "unbeliever" and another...

I think you'll find Canada's demographics have changed significantly in the past 6 years. But it doesn't really matter... we don't agree with the US "melting pot" theory of society in Canada; we go for the "ethnic mosaic" model, which means that while the people themselves may be mostly european, the culture and society reflects cultures from around the world.

Of course, the city and non-city populations are significantly different with respect to both culture and ethnic origin....

While it is true there have been conflicts (often with the US involved), you should go back and look at Europe between the years 1100 and 1950. It was a situation of many mostly-equal powers, and they were generally at each others throats.

An excellent point.

Another good example is the The Peloponnesian War: the relatively equal strengths of the Athenian and Spartan alliances were what made this war last so long and be so devestating. For that matter, the history of the Greek city-states in general provides many examples of the point you make.

The Chinese had a similiar period, known as the Warring States period. Different scholars use different dates to describe this period, but it was roughly 250 years. So the situation you describe is no

In World War I, a war where battles would often be counted as a loss by both sides, the Canadians never lost a battle. By the end of the war, the Germans had a network of spies dedicated to finding out what part of the line the Canadians were being sent to, because that was where the next attack would come from.

In World War II, the influx of volunteer Canadian pilots kept the RAF from being attritted into nothingness during the Battle of Britain. On D-Day, the Canadians at Juno Beach faced stiffer resistance than any other beachhead except Omaha - by day's end they had penetrated deeper into France than any of the other four beachheads. Later, it was the Canadians who drove the German Fifteenth Army, at that time the last fully cohesive German unit in the region, off their superbly-fortified position overlooking (and denying naval access to) the port of Antwerp, which the Allies desperately needed for supplies and which the British had failed to open.

You can joke all you want, but you seriously don't want to fuck with the Canadian military (and no, I'm not Canadian).

We'll liberate you yet, don't worry. Most of you have placed yourself in easy reach along the border already...:)

Are you really so naive?? 95+% of our 35m people (err, shock troopers hardened in the north working as jumberjacks and hunting bears with knives to survive or skinning beaver tails) is within 100km of the border. When an order is given, these troops will sweep down to the Gulf, only pausing for a minute to burn the whitehouse twice.

Easy access goes both ways, eh?:) No wander US gov't is freaking out and spending billions on the northern border.

The Canadians (well, really the British) won because they successfully repulsed the US invasion.The US won because they stopped the retaliatory British attacks (ask why the White House is white).The only losers were the North American natives.

And that could possibly be only because Broc died. He had supported Tecumseh in his bid for 'nationhood', but got himself killed in a battle. His superiors were not as grateful to the native leader as the guy who was fighting alongside them was. However, what would one generals belief do in London? It's unclear.

I think the Polish and New Zealander's would like to discuss who "kept the RAF from being attritted into nothingness". And I'm pretty sure the British would not consider having around 1900 of their 2350 pilots left at the end of the Battle of Britain as being "attritted into nothingness".

I don't see how triumphant and selective reporting of war time events is any better coming from Canadians than it is from Americans.

My favourite is the one where American's thing that they saved the U.K. from invasion by Germany. Sorry to disappoint but operation Sea Lion was permanently postponed on the 17th September 1940 months before for the USA entered the war and thanks to Ultra we knew it was postponed.

Go read the wikipedia page on Operation Sea Lion to see why an invasion of Great Britain was realistically outwith the reach of the Germans at any point.

My favourite is the one where American's thing that they saved the U.K. from invasion by Germany. Sorry to disappoint but operation Sea Lion was permanently postponed on the 17th September 1940 months before for the USA entered the war and thanks to Ultra we knew it was postponed

You over-simplify, like many Americans do in reverse.

Ultimately, the Germans were unsuccessful in defeating the RAF during 1940 more as a result of the short range of their fighters than any other single reason. The Allies faced exactly the same problem later in the war, and developed long range fighter technology to solve it. These long range fighters shattered the Luftwaffe and made the D-Day invasion possible.

It's not an unreasonable assumption to suppose the Germans would have eventually been able to

Heh... except for the fact that Canada had both U-Boats in the St. Lawrence and Japanese off of Vancouver Island... and took hits on both shores. The PTO was part of WWII, but not one Canada was really fighting in... after all, Canada wasn't being threatened in any way by Japan until after Pearl Harbour -- and by that point the US was already in full swing and needed no help. Of course, Canadian scientists were still busy helping the US with weapons, intel, perimiter defense, etc -- but since this isn't t

The PTO was part of WWII, but not one Canada was really fighting in... after all, Canada wasn't being threatened in any way by Japan until after Pearl Harbour -- and by that point the US was already in full swing and needed no help

Pearl Harbor was in 1941. 1942 was the darkest year of the war for the Allies. The US was not "in full swing" until mid 1943.

There was a significant campaign in Alaska in 1942-1943, including a major amphibious invasion (Attu) and a major naval battle (Komandorski Islands). I don't know to what extent the Canadians participated in the earlier actions, but there were over 5000 Canadian troops, including some elite units, in the invasion force for Kiska.

I believe Dieppe was in WWI, didn't we lose that one, or was it we won, but the losses were so agrevious?

Also on the WWI front, so far as Canadians go, Billy Bishop was a WWI fighter ace that was Canadian. Not only did he have more kills than anyone else (in the entire war from any country), it wasn't even close. Everyone hears about the "Red Baron" but he couldn't hold a candle to Billy's accomplishments (I believe it was something like 50+ planes, just looked it up 72!). He also had the distinction of act

Dieppe was World War 2, not World War 1. And Bishop's 72 victories puts him at #4 in the war [wikipedia.org], and #2 of those who survived. The Red Baron had 80, and France's Rene Fonck (who also survived) had 75.

He had access to Stone Ghost: "It's a computer system that links the five eyes. The five eyes are the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. All their information is shared on the Stone Ghost computer." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/10/10/ns-delisle-spy-hearing.html) So it's not just Canadian secrets.